PS: It is not always advisable to base an argument on a pseudoscience or conspiracy theory documentary.

I did not mean to, but, well actually I did. I was looking for material and that is what I found. I am aware of the value or lack of it from info found from these sources. As I said, I met the 2 people myself but quoting myself or undocumented statements does not make a lot of sense I guess. They never published their work. I do not even know if the gent from Bremen still lives. I last met him 10 years ago. So yes, it is hearsay as soon as it leaves my room. I get that.

Drawings of magical fantastic creatures like dragons and unicorns don't mean those things really existed. And it doesn't mean that people existed at the same time as dinosaurs. It just means that people have good imaginations!

You do not believe in dragons and unicorns? Seamen always had a lot of imagination but the "Water Unicorn" exists. It is just a whale but what do you think goes through a persons mind after a year in a tub. Dragons, fairy tale. Of course I know that men and dragons never lived together if you refer to dinosaurs that in some species look astonishingly exact like a dragon. But that was found out a long time later. I wait to see what pops up next. Afterall until the earth was declared a ball there was a lot of evidence for the contrary. Mass extinction was the idea of a few fools they told me when I attended school. Now we all know what the meteorites did. Who knows, maybe god shows up afterall. Until then, no worshipping though.

Show me some real evidence (fossils, DNA, etc.) of dragons--flying, fire-breathing giant lizards, not regular little Komodo reptiles--then we can talk. Same with unicorns, they are horses with one spiral horn, not narwhals or mutated goats.

Until then, they are as mythical as gods.

Logged

When all of Cinderella's finery changed back at midnight, why didn't the shoes disappear? What's up with that?

Karl I commend your way of thinking. I too say there is a possibility. It is not because of ancient artifacts though. It is simply because we are the only planet we have found with life on it. We have telescopes that witness big bangs and yet not one other big bang has produced an identical solar system to ours.

I don't think God wants us to worship but rather cares more that we appreciate each other and our planet.

Well...yeah we kinda do. In the sense that we have telescopes that can observe the remnants of the big bang (cosmic microwave background radiation - CMB). So we do have telescopes that witness a big bang.

You do not believe in dragons and unicorns? Seamen always had a lot of imagination but the "Water Unicorn" exists. It is just a whale but what do you think goes through a persons mind after a year in a tub. Dragons, fairy tale. Of course I know that men and dragons never lived together if you refer to dinosaurs that in some species look astonishingly exact like a dragon. But that was found out a long time later. I wait to see what pops up next. Afterall until the earth was declared a ball there was a lot of evidence for the contrary. Mass extinction was the idea of a few fools they told me when I attended school. Now we all know what the meteorites did. Who knows, maybe god shows up afterall. Until then, no worshipping though.

"When we landed on the moon, that was the point where god should have come up and said 'hello'. Because if you invent some creatures, put them on the blue one and they make it to the grey one, you f**king turn up and say 'well done'."

Well...yeah we kinda do. In the sense that we have telescopes that can observe the remnants of the big bang (cosmic microwave background radiation - CMB). So we do have telescopes that witness a big bang.

True, strictly speaking, but also not very meaningful. If you interpret it that way, then everything you see, hear, smell, touch, and taste is "observing the remnants of the big bang". Telescopes aren't relevant anymore than flathead screwdrivers are.

Anyway, that's not what June meant. She said that we have telescopes that can observe various big bangs, and that they create different solar systems. This is simply not correct.

Logged

[On how kangaroos could have gotten back to Australia after the flood]: Don't kangaroos skip along the surface of the water? --Kenn

Just a question. And placed in the Chatter section so no one is offended.No prove or traces of god? Is that true? How did the people living in Egypt thousands of years ago move blocks of stone 2000 tons of weight?

Science is very poor at history. That's why the most popular scientists create science-fiction because that's what any scientific hypotheses is.

Just a question. And placed in the Chatter section so no one is offended.No prove or traces of god? Is that true? How did the people living in Egypt thousands of years ago move blocks of stone 2000 tons of weight?

Science is very poor at history. That's why the most popular scientists create science-fiction because that's what any scientific hypotheses is.

Excuse me, but you are using a computer and the internet at this very moment, are you not? If you don't see the irony here, I call POE.

Logged

When all of Cinderella's finery changed back at midnight, why didn't the shoes disappear? What's up with that?

Well...yeah we kinda do. In the sense that we have telescopes that can observe the remnants of the big bang (cosmic microwave background radiation - CMB). So we do have telescopes that witness a big bang.

True, strictly speaking, but also not very meaningful. If you interpret it that way, then everything you see, hear, smell, touch, and taste is "observing the remnants of the big bang". Telescopes aren't relevant anymore than flathead screwdrivers are.

Anyway, that's not what June meant. She said that we have telescopes that can observe various big bangs, and that they create different solar systems. This is simply not correct.

Science is very poor at history. That's why the most popular scientists create science-fiction because that's what any scientific hypotheses is.

Dowhatnow? Are you saying that the scientific method is poor at determining history? Data can be difficult to get to, so I suppose that, yes, in a sense, using the scientific method to derive the truth of history is more subject to error than deriving the truth of a mechanistic process governing physical behavior.

Your next sentence makes no sense.

Logged

"When we landed on the moon, that was the point where god should have come up and said 'hello'. Because if you invent some creatures, put them on the blue one and they make it to the grey one, you f**king turn up and say 'well done'."

Dowhatnow? Are you saying that the scientific method is poor at determining history? Data can be difficult to get to, so I suppose that, yes, in a sense, using the scientific method to derive the truth of history is more subject to error than deriving the truth of a mechanistic process governing physical behavior.

Your next sentence makes no sense.

If a hypotheses was true it would be a conclusion.If it's fiction, one works to create a world where it's true. But it starts as pure fiction.

The scientific method does nothing to determine events after they happen.It observes events as they happen and predicts a future observation.Even if the observation is confirmed, it may change at the next observation.Science can only predict forward.

If we were to create life from scratch, we would not have proven how it happened in the past.We would only be confirming that we did it yesterday. And it might not happen a second time either. See? It's all forward, and still iffy.

The scientific method does nothing to determine events after they happen.It observes events as they happen and predicts a future observation.Even if the observation is confirmed, it may change at the next observation.Science can only predict forward.

I think I get what you're trying to say, but even then, science can and does determine what has happened in the past. See "cosmic background radiation" for an example. Science makes a prediction on what may have happened, then uses the scientific method to determine the validity of the hypothesis.

The scientific method does nothing to determine events after they happen.It observes events as they happen and predicts a future observation.Even if the observation is confirmed, it may change at the next observation.Science can only predict forward.

I think I get what you're trying to say, but even then, science can and does determine what has happened in the past. See "cosmic background radiation" for an example. Science makes a prediction on what may have happened, then uses the scientific method to determine the validity of the hypothesis.

A fine example. It was discovered. 100 fictions were created to explain it. Some of them remain. Some of the discarded fictions may well return some day. Getting closer to "the truth" is a mental construct. One may always end up being wrong, even if they do recreate the original event, it may not play out as intended or as it originally happened.

If a hypotheses was true it would be a conclusion.If it's fiction, one works to create a world where it's true. But it starts as pure fiction.

The scientific method does nothing to determine events after they happen.It observes events as they happen and predicts a future observation.Even if the observation is confirmed, it may change at the next observation.Science can only predict forward.

If we were to create life from scratch, we would not have proven how it happened in the past.We would only be confirming that we did it yesterday. And it might not happen a second time either. See? It's all forward, and still iffy.

Science would appear to be able to enable us to use the information we have to come up with the most reasonable and likely scenarios for what has previously transpired. Does science always tell us EXACTLY what happen? No, but it does give us the means to draw reasonable conclusions of what probably took place and it tells/shows us why.

Saying it starts as pure fiction seems a bit much. The full picture at times may have some ficticious elements by necessity when the testible data only yields a framework that must be built upon to develop a theory, etc. due to the information that may be lacking.

The scientific method does A LOT to not only help us determine what past events have unfolded, but also the how and why of the matter as well. You seem to disregard the value and probability and the implications of evidence.

Science is not about "proving" anything. So, straw man, babycakes. Science offers plausible explanations for things that have happened, and suggests ways to test how good those explanations are. If the explanations are really good ones, then we can use them to predict what might happen, and apply what we know to new situations to improve the explanations even more. We can get close enough to "proof" as long as the explanation works as predicted when applied.

So, yes, science can tell us what happened in the past. That is why we use science to solve crimes (that have happened in the past) and to find petroleum (that was created and deposited in the past) and to understand huricanes and tornadoes (that happened in the past) and to diagnose and cure diseases (that people contracted in the past).

Logged

When all of Cinderella's finery changed back at midnight, why didn't the shoes disappear? What's up with that?

Science can never prove anything. We can imagine we are closer to the truthwith repetition, but nothing can be proven. Except in Math.

Actually, science can prove, or disprove, things. Take archaeology, for example. It has proven that there was never a mass exodus from Egypt as described in Exodus. The Exodus, and the promised land to the promised people, are the bases for the Judeo-Christian religion.

No Exodus, no Moses; no Moses, no Abraham, no Adam, no Eve, no Jesus, no resurrection, no gods.

^^^Science gets closer to "proof" than any other human endeavor. Can you offer a more accurate way to determine what is true about the world? The theory of gravity, for example does not "prove" that you will always fall if you jump unaided off a cliff, but I doubt you want to test it out. You are nitpicking. What is your point?

Logged

When all of Cinderella's finery changed back at midnight, why didn't the shoes disappear? What's up with that?

100 fictions were created to explain it. Some of them remain. Some of the discarded fictions may well return some day. Getting closer to "the truth" is a mental construct. One may always end up being wrong, even if they do recreate the original event, it may not play out as intended or as it originally happened.

Interesting.

How many creation myths do you think there are? Which one (if any) do you subscribe to - and why?

I'm saying being the only life form in the universe is what we now know. That if the big bang is the only answer it should be able to duplicate the process just like life does. I know we are taking pictures of space. There are satellites and probes taking pictures. Just go to the Science channel's website or NASA's. I have a channel that is 24/7 NASA and it's a good way to fall asleep but they show lots of pictures and video clips taken from space. I also know I've seen a program that claimed it was actual footage of a solar system being born. I remember being awed by it. I have slept since then but I don't think I'd mess it up that bad. It was 1 of those programs that makes you think about your own existence and the wander of it all. The subject matter is what caught my attention.

It's like every time science reveals a new discovery I feel closer to God.

Can I ask why it makes you feel closer to god? I get the exact opposite feeling.

If we find evidence of life on mars will that also make you feel closer to god?

Agreed...

In my former theistic life, I would have said the same thing as junebug said. Now, it feels like everything I learn/hear about/etc moves the god delusion further to the back of my mind. The god of the gaps keeps slipping further and further into assurance of non-existence (ok, call it 99.999%).

I'm sure it's not original to Dan Barker, but in his book Godless he talks about how supernatural explanations for daily events would always be the LAST thing we naturally go to in our lives. For example, he says if we leave a shopping mall and cannot find our car, we start with: I forgot where I parked, maybe it was stolen, or towed, maybe your spouse came by and got it, etc, etc, etc... Way down the list would be angels spirited away my car!

Can I ask why it makes you feel closer to god? I get the exact opposite feeling.

My question is, what doesn't make religious people feel closer to god? It seems like whatever the evidence, it confirms their beliefs. When the gospels agree - see? They would only align if they were true! When the gospels disagree - see? You wouldn't expect eyewitness accounts to agree 100%. They must be true!

I'm sure it's not original to Dan Barker, but in his book Godless he talks about how supernatural explanations for daily events would always be the LAST thing we naturally go to in our lives.

When people demand I expain some heretofore unexplained scientific mystery and I cannot, they want to fill that gap of ignorance with god. I then ask them how flatscreen tvs work. Don't know? Oh, well, let's just attribute that bit of ignorance to god, shall we? I ask them how a toilet valve works. Draw it for me. Oh, you can't? Well shuck my corn, it must be god's miracle! One day my cell phone somehow turned itself on. Electronic glitch I cannot readily explain, or spirits, hobgoblins and deities? God, of course!

When people demand I expain some heretofore unexplained scientific mystery and I cannot, they want to fill that gap of ignorance with god.

God works in myterious ways... therefore the mystery in god is put there by another god who put it there via another god... a big daisy chain of gods I guess?

Yes, dvd players must work by magic, since I can't tell you how they actually work.

What is especially irritating is when people assume that, since they themselves don't understand or can't explain a phenomenon, nobody can or ever will, and therefore supernatural beings. Look, lamebrain, we do have a pretty good idea of how the eye evolved, okay? We know where morality comes from. And we know why tornadoes hit the US midwest so frequently.

When biologists eventually create a new life form in a lab, it will be because of god, too. Just wait and see.

Logged

When all of Cinderella's finery changed back at midnight, why didn't the shoes disappear? What's up with that?